PAWAN BAWRI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction to the respondents to issue a Notification under Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'New Land Acquisition Act of 2013') to determine the compensation for acquisition of 7.89 acres (3,43,20.20 sq.ft.) of land out of the "Maxwelton Estate" as on the date of issuance of such notification under Sec. 11 of the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013 and to pay compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the said land.

(2.) Heard Mr. Aman Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr.GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr.GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 -4.

(3.) The concise fact of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition is recapitulated. The present petitioner is the son of late J.N. Bawri. The land popularly known as "Maxwelton Estate" situated at Kench's Trace, Shillong comprising of two plots was purchased by late B. Borooah under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.1920 for a consideration amount of Rs. 40,000/ -. The said Maxwelton Estate was mutated in the name of late B. Borooah vide order dated 09.06.1988 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue in Case No. MBR/RA/No.2/85 and also the order dated 26.08.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Mutation Case No. 1 of 1985. A writ petition being Civil Rule No. 27(SH) of 1990 (Civil Rule No. 491 of 1990) was filed by the State Govt. challenging the said mutation orders for mutating the said Maxwelton Estate in the name of late B. Borooah in the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench. The Gauhati High Court vide common judgment and order dated 06.08.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 27(SH) of 1990 (Civil Rule 491 of 1990) and Civil Rule No. 20 (SH) of 1992 (Civil Rule No. 1279 of 1992) dismissed the Civil Rule No. 27(SH) of 1990 challenging the mutation orders and the relevant portion of the common judgment and order dated 06.08.1999 is quoted hereunder: - -